No property is worth a life?

This is a discussion on No property is worth a life? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; On my spread, the jackers are going to hear,
" Thank you, come again. Smithers, release the hounds."
Then they'll be a hollerin' "Daddy don't"
...

I would rather die with good men than hide with cowardsIf you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

When did duels become illegal? 1830-1840? That was the really the first standard in American History, where a human life became more important than Honor. Property came later, but it was a progression.

I'm not advocating it, as those others have pointed out, it isn't worth it today. Legal standards today, say deadly force is only to be used to protect life.

But, from a historical perspective, American has consistenly become more and more "Liberal" to the point, that I wonder if we might have gone too far. If you spank your kid now, and the wrong person see it, you can be in big trouble....to me that is crazy. Look at the crazy laws about "animal rights". You can't even legally shoot your own property now in some places.

In 1870, it was quite common for a "horse thief" to get shot attempting robbery. Of course, rough times in places with little law enforcement, called for rough treatment of criminals. (talking about West of the Miss. river mostly)

I'm kind of the opinion that we are headed back towards the "rough times" scenerio. But, hog-tied with the laws as they are today, regarding use of deadly force, and the fact that law enforcement has to treat criminals with kid gloves, gives the criminals little to fear.

But, no--it wasn't always that way.

Stealing a horse in the old West isn't the equivalent of stealing a car today - IMO. To compare the two seems to be taking things a bit out of context. In the old West, if you stole a man's horse and left him out in the middle of no where, he could die...he was robbed of an essential. Today, a car is essential for us to have without a doubt but not in the same way as a horse was essential in the wild West. You may encounter a time of difficulty to have your car stolen but you aren't likely to die from it.

I would also intervene, within the statutes of my area, to prevent it. A thief has nothing to fear from me, if he does not resist or attack me. If he chooses to escalate, I will do likewise at a proportionate level.

No property is worth a life....... yet so many are willing to risk their lives or to take another's to acquire property illegally. If we look at this as a question of free markets then it would seem that a significant portion of the population do think that property is worth a life. So the question then as I see it is do these people value that property that is not theirs so much, or their own lives so little? If they put such a low value on their own life how should I think they value mine?

Hopyard, I can see your point about the car if you have full coverage. But not everybody does. If you only have the minimum legally required coverage you do not have theft coverage. That vehicle may have a book value that is equal to or greater than a years salary for some people. That vehicle may contain their means of earning a living. Last figures I saw (2008) only about 43% of stolen vehicles in this country were recovered. Should someone just let a person take off with a year of their life and their means of feeding their family in the hope that the police will catch them? And who is going to pay their bills while they wait for their vehicle and tools to be recovered?

That of course is why these questions are fundamentally moral and ethical dilemmas and the answers (aside from local law) very situational.

Yup, I agree with you, if I had my livelihood in my truck and all my money in that truck, my motivation for stopping the thief would be effectively, to save my life. Whether the law would allow use of deadly force, or even brandishing, of course is specific to each jurisdiction. We know the answer for Texas at night time because that has already been litigated in favor of the car owner.

Although I see the logic you are applying and don't disagree with it, I don't think many DAs and judges would see the ongoing theft of my livelihood as equivalent to a direct threat on my person. The end result could be the same. In one I might die from starvation or exposure and in the other from a gun shot or a knife wound, but there is a difference in immediacy, and difference in ability to mitigate the damages in your scenario as distinct from reacting to the guy holding a knife to your head.

Just for grins, what about a similar scenario, but one in which the thief is taking not your means of livelihood in its entirety, but your supplies for TODAYS's job. Maybe you are an AC mechanic. The thief is taking the condensing unit off the back of your pickup while it is parked in your driveway. You are certainly going to lose the day's pay if the device is stolen. You'll have a really unhappy customer when you don't show to install it at the appointed time, but that isn't as severe as the situation you described.

Boundaries?

(We have of course thoroughly hashed this out as far as our state in the aftermath of the case in Houston, can't think of the man's name, who took a shotgun to a couple of guys robbing his neighbor's home. )

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

The Federal Government and some private industries seem to hold a different view.

Try sneaking into a nuclear plant or a DOD site that deals with nuclear fuel and see how far you get. Or, if one feels particularly froggy at the moment try stealing a nuclear weapon being loaded onto a Naval vessel and see what the Marines think of your life.

It is my personal beleif that whoever steals property should be imprisoned the first time, and maybe even the second time.
Third time?
You lose. Since you obviously arent capable of learning, you should be turned into hog feed. Its simple,effective,cheap...and your life would have served a purpose.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

I would also intervene, within the statutes of my area, to prevent it. A thief has nothing to fear from me, if he does not resist or attack me. If he chooses to escalate, I will do likewise at a proportionate level.

I've been thinking about this quote and although it sounds good on paper, I'm not sure if its so great when actually put into practice here in the real world.

I was sitting in the dark tonight on my front porch. I imagined a scenario where I'm witnessing someone trying to break into the car that's in my driveway and drive off with it. Let's assume that I was in the house and didn't know about what was taking place until I heard something that caught my attention.

Now imagine this if you will; I'm going to go out in the dark and head off a man to whom I know nothing about and engage him in hand to hand combat? Are you saying you would do this or that you would go out and pull a gun on him?

From your comment, I'm imagining that you would go out and confront him with a verbal reprimand. If the guy strikes you then you strike him back and only escalate in your level of force as a means of matching the measure that the thief exhibits?

The qualm that I have with this is that I could very well get the smithereens smashed out of me. When I took my CCDW class, we talked about a scenario where I catch someone in my garage trying to steal my car. If I engage in hand to hand combat and I start to loose, I can't get a gun out and shoot him because all of a sudden I'm loosing the fight. So given this scenario, I'm still at a considerable risk of getting hurt since its possible for someone to severely injure me using nothing more than their hands and feet. This scenario assumes an equivalent sized man rendering a disparity of force argument ineffective.

I hope you can understand my concerns pertaining to this scenario and that I haven't misrepresented you in any way.

It is my personal beleif that whoever steals property should be imprisoned the first time, and maybe even the second time.
Third time?
You lose. Since you obviously arent capable of learning, you should be turned into hog feed. Its simple,effective,cheap...and your life would have served a purpose.

That is exactly how I feel about it. Three strikes and you're out!

Frankly, IF IT WERE LEGAL I would have no qualms about shooting someone for stealing my property. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. The way I see it I trade my time (life) for compensation. I use the money I am compensated to purchase property. Be it a home, a car or other item, I have traded a portion of my life away to obtain that item. I think I should be allowed to defend my property with any amount of force I so choose. Death SHOULD be an occupational hazard for criminals.

Since it's not legal I will adhere to the laws of my state to the best of my ability.

Hopyard there was actually a case shortly before the incident with Joe Horn that was almost exactly as you describe in your hypothetical. No charges against the shooter.

I am not saying that I necessarily would shoot someone stealing my truck, but I sure appreciate the laws of the state of Texas giving me options I did not have back in Maryland. As far as your hypothetical I will say that I would be less inclined to shoot someone that was running away with a few parts than someone that was attempting to steal the vehicle and all of it's contents.

As far as the question of vengeance goes I don't think it is an issue. A criminal in a state where the use of force including deadly force is authorized for the protection of property is taking a gamble. He is betting (his life) that he can steal from you without getting caught or killed. If he wins he gets your stuff. If he loses, he loses either his freedom or his life.

If go to a casino and put my life savings down on red on the roulette table, is it vengeance for them to pick up the chips when it comes up black?

The only way I would consider vengeance to be involved is if when he was caught he was immediately compliant and was shot anyway.

The only way I would consider vengeance to be involved is if when he was caught he was immediately compliant and was shot anyway.

I've been thinking about this...the line between vengeance and justice. It appears it can be a very thin line. If I go out and I say, "I'm going to kill that SOB for trying steal my truck!" It would appear that vengeance is very much a part of the equation. If you go out and think to yourself, "I'm going to go out and protect my property", and if you prevail then it appears justice was served.

I also agree with your assessment. If you apprehend the thief and after he gives up, you shoot him, it is a clear case of vengeance. At the same time, however, you can't tell me that some people aren't going out with the intent to hurt the guy because by golly he shouldn't have tried to steal my truck. A protection of property might be a part of the equation but I think if we're honest, we'll admit there's some vengeance in there as well.

The thing of it is...its hard to be objective when its you and your stuff. Just the same as a lawyer could defend a murderer and do so with true objectivity, how objective could he be if he were defending his wife? Or his daughter? Or himself?

I don't want people to take me wrong and think that I'm against people taking up for themselves. I also don't want people to think I'm taking up for the thieves that steal honest hard working peoples' property. I don't condone theft in any way. I'm just saying that you really need to be careful if you go out to protect your property because if a jury gets even a hint that you went over the line because you were out with vengeance on your mind then you might find yourself sharing some soap with a man named Bubba.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Frankly, IF IT WERE LEGAL I would have no qualms about shooting someone for stealing my property. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. The way I see it I trade my time (life) for compensation. I use the money I am compensated to purchase property. Be it a home, a car or other item, I have traded a portion of my life away to obtain that item. I think I should be allowed to defend my property with any amount of force I so choose. Death SHOULD be an occupational hazard for criminals.

Since it's not legal I will adhere to the laws of my state to the best of my ability.

I honestly do not think I would shoot someone over property even if it were legal. That is just a personal view of mine. I would not have a problem if another person did though.
I just have a problem with the idea that a thief has value. Maybe to his family but not to me.
I have no problem if the people want a law that protects thieves but please do not insult my intelligence by trying to convince me that the thief has value.

I've been thinking about this quote and although it sounds good on paper, I'm not sure if its so great when actually put into practice here in the real world.

I was sitting in the dark tonight on my front porch. I imagined a scenario where I'm witnessing someone trying to break into the car that's in my driveway and drive off with it. Let's assume that I was in the house and didn't know about what was taking place until I heard something that caught my attention.

Now imagine this if you will; I'm going to go out in the dark and head off a man to whom I know nothing about and engage him in hand to hand combat? Are you saying you would do this or that you would go out and pull a gun on him?

From your comment, I'm imagining that you would go out and confront him with a verbal reprimand. If the guy strikes you then you strike him back and only escalate in your level of force as a means of matching the measure that the thief exhibits?

The qualm that I have with this is that I could very well get the smithereens smashed out of me. When I took my CCDW class, we talked about a scenario where I catch someone in my garage trying to steal my car. If I engage in hand to hand combat and I start to loose, I can't get a gun out and shoot him because all of a sudden I'm loosing the fight. So given this scenario, I'm still at a considerable risk of getting hurt since its possible for someone to severely injure me using nothing more than their hands and feet. This scenario assumes an equivalent sized man rendering a disparity of force argument ineffective.

I hope you can understand my concerns pertaining to this scenario and that I haven't misrepresented you in any way.

Sometimes in my efforts to be succinct I am not as complete as I should be to make my thoughts clear.

If I determined that he had broken into my car (Burglary possibly Grand Theft - both felonies) I would confront him with a drawn gun. I would not go out and play Octagon with him. Lethal force is allowed to prevent a felony where I live, although I would not use it merely to prevent a theft. I would also not shoot him if he ran.

As to the escalation of force. If he produced a weapon, I would probably shoot him. That would depend on the weapon. With a contact weapon, time and distance permitting, I "might" try ordering him to drop it before shooting. If he produced a firearm I would shoot him. I believe that any escalation of his part would rise to the level justifying lethal force. I suppose it is possible that he might charge and attempt an unarmed attack. In many, many arrests at gunpoint, I have never had an unarmed suspect attempt an unarmed attack against a drawn gun. If such an extremely rare instance occurred, I would determine what I thought was appropriate action at the time.

As to your second to last paragraph, that will depend on the statutes where you live.